Westeen Eesebve and Noethern Ohio 

Blitortesl Society. 

SH 34 NATEDBY ' Hi Jt\ O 



G3 
Copy 1 



i OF FISH BREEDING 



UNITED STATES, 



HYBRIDIZATION OF FISH- 



READ BEFORE THE 



KIRTLAND SOCIETY OF NATURAL SCIENCES, 

AND THE 

NATIONAL SRORTSMANS' ASSOCIATION, 
At Cleveland, Ohio, 

1875 



DR. THEODATUS GARLICK. 



CLEVELAND, O. : 
FAIRBANKS, BENEDICT & CO., PRINTERS, HERALD OFFICE, 

1875. 



S3 






Papers on the Priority of Fish Breeding. 



FISHY. 

The report of Prof. S. F. Baird, Assistant 
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute and 
United States Fish Commissioner, concern- 
ing the operations of the Commissioners on 
Fish and Fisheries for the years 1872 and 1873, 
is a very interesting document. Portions of 
the information contained in it have from 
time to time been given to the public, but 
the report as a whole is none the less read- 
able on that account. 

We shall endeavor to find space at an early 
date for some of the more important portions 
of the report we have not already published, 
but our object just now is to call attention to 
one point in the document which opens up a 
historical question of local as well as general 
interest. Professor Baird says, on the au- 
thority of the Southern Cultivator, that Rev. 
Dr. John Bachman, of Charleston, S. C, as 
early as 1804, at the age of fourteen, impreg- 
nated and hatched the eggs of trout and other 
fishes. This has been questioned by some, 
but Dr. Slack, in his work on trout culture, 
remarks that Dr. Bachman's reputation as a 
Christian and a naturalist is too well estab- 
lished to permit us to doubt his word. It is 
not pretended, indeed, that the idea was 
original with him, but he probably found in 
the work of Duhamel Du Monceau the 
account of the methods of Jacobi, and imi- 
tated them. Professor Baird then goes on 
to say that "in 1853 Dr. Theodatus Garlick 
and Prof. Ackley established a fish farm 
near Cleveland, Ohio, the result of their 
experience being published in Dr. Garlick's 
work, entitled ' A Treatise on the Artificial 
Propagation of certain kinds of Fish ; Cleve- 
land, Ohio, 1857.'" 

Now we would like to hear Dr. Garlick on 
this question of priority of fish culture in 
this country. We are of opinion he will not 
subscribe to Dr. Slack's and Prof. Baird's 
view in regard to Dr. Bachman's claims. We 
have always regarded Dr. Garlick as the 
original fish breeder in the United States, 
and we should like to hear what he has to 
say concerning this attempt to deprive him 
of the honor. — Cleveland Herald. 



Bedford, O., Dec. 9, 1874. 
Eds. Heeald : In you paper of to-day I 
notice an article taken from the report of the 
U. S. Fish Commissioners, in which Prof. 



Baird gives to the Rev. John Bachman, D.D., 
of South Carolina, the credit of being the first 
person in this country to breed fish by arti- 
ficial fecundation. 

Prof. Baird does this on the authority of the 
Southern Cultivator, and what Dr. Slack says 
in his work on trout culture, to-wit: "Dr. 
Bachman's reputation as a Christian and a 
naturalist is too well established to doubt his 
word. " Inasmuch as you desire a response 
from me I shall comply, though with some 
feeling of reluctance, for the reason that Dr. 
Bachman is dead. I trust, however, that I 
as fully recognize as I should that good and 
charitable Roman proverb, "Zte mortuus, 
nil nisi bonum. " No one hesitates to speak 
of Arnold or Robert E. Lee as traitors, though 
dead. 

The Southern Cultivator is not authority 
to settle this question, nor is Dr. Slack's 
short-hand logic any better. I shall offer 
Dr. Bachman's statement, as published in the 
Southern Cultivator, for the consideration of 
your readers, and for the consideration of 
fish breeders in particular. I care not a fig 
for what Dr. Slack says; for aught Dr. 
Slack knows, I may be as much of a Chris- 
tian and naturalist as Dr. Bachman, though 
I set up no such claims, nor wish it done for 
me. When I can present no better claims 
for priority than Dr. Slack offers for Dr. 
Bachman, I will surrender. But to the 
question at issue. 

In 1855 Dr. Bachman read a paper before 
the South Carolina Agricultural Society, at 
Columbia, which was published in the South- 
ern Cultivator. I reviewed Dr. Bachman's 
paper in the Ohio Farmer, with some strict- 
ures, greatly to the annoyance of some of my 
most esteemed friends, and added that review 
to my little book as an appendix, and do not 
to-day take back a single word or sentence of 
that review. 

If Dr. Bachman placed himself in a false 
position let him take the consequences. As 
for his Christianity, all I know about it is 
that he opened the secession convention by 
praying most fervently for the destruction of 
the best human government the world has ever 
seen, and for the building up of a slave 
oligarchy, which establishes, in Dr. Slack's 
opinion, his soundness as a Christian beyond 
all doubt. This being done, we will try him 
as a naturalist. Dr. Bachman made the fol- 
lowing statements in his paper, above alluded 



PAPEES ON THE PRIORITY OF FISH BREEDING. 



to. In 1804 he fecundated the ova taken 
from dead fishes, kown as the " Corporal," 
which had been dead several hours, and 
hatched them; and further states that he 
fecundated the ova taken from dead brook 
trout, in the month of August, which was at 
least one month before they were mature, 
and hatched them ; and more yet, he fecun- 
dated the ova taken from the perch, and after 
drying them for ten days, he hatched quite a 
number of young perch. Are we not to 
doubt such statements as these ? Dr. Slack 
says, no. 

Let Let Dr. Slack make these same experi- 
ments, and if he succeeds, as Dr. Bachman 
says he did, then let him try his hand at 
fecundating addled ova; he will succeed in 
the latter case, as well as the other cases. 
Try it, Dr. Slack, and report. Dr. Bach- 
man further states in his paper, that in 1838, 
(I think it was,) he read a paper before a 
scientific society in London, in which he 
detailed these experiments. The proceedings 
of that society are now, or were, in the 
Smithsonian Institute. 

I wrote to Prof. Baird, asking him to 
examine the reports of that meeting. Prof. 
Baird wrote me that he had examined the 
reports of the proceedings of that meeting, 
and no mention was made of such a paper as 
Dr. Bachman said he had read before that 
meeting. Strange omission — that such a 
paper — such a subject — so new, so valuable, 
should be omitted in their published proceed- 
ings, It is enough to make a Yankee hate 
John Bull. Dr. Bachman was careful to 
state in his paper, read at Columbia, that he 
was a boy when he made these wonderful 
experiments, and that he had never seen, nor 
did he know, that any book had ever been 
written on fishes ; so you see that Prof. 
Baird's statement, that the boy Bachman 
had probably seen the work of Duhamel 
Dumonceau falls to the ground. It was, 
therefore, original with the boy Bachman, if 
we are to take Dr. Bachman 's word, and Dr. 
Slack says we must not doubt it. 

On the 21st day of November, 1853, (not 
August,) I artificially spawned and fecun- 
dated the ova from brook trout. On the 22d 
day of January, 1854, 1 found the first young 
trout hatched from these ova — just fifty years 
after the boy Bachman had done the same 
thing, with ova taken from dead trout in the 
month of August. 

Very truly yours, 

Theodatus Gaelics. 



Dr. Garlick replies to Prof. Baird on the 
subject of priority in artificial fish breeding, 
in a communication which will be found 
spicy reading by naturalists. The Doctor's 
letter will probably act as a stick thrust into 
a hornet's nest, and there undoubtedly will be 



a buzzing. It is Prof. Baird's turn now to 
have the floor, and we wait his answer to 
the pointed statements of Dr. Garlick. As the 
case stands now the Doctor has very clearly 
the advantage of the Professor.— Herald. 

Bedfoed, O., Feb. 2, 1875. 

Eds. Heeald : Will you oblige me by 
publishing in your paper the following state- 
ment, which I intend shall be my final ans- 
wer to Prof. S. F. Baird's Reports, on Fish 
Culture, in which he gives to the Rev. John 
Bachman, D. D., of Charleston, S. O, the 
priority of fish breeding in this country. I 
have before me the first volume of the South- 
ern Agriculturist for the year 1853, edited by 
Col. A. G. Summer, and published at Laur- 
ensville, S. C. The March number contains 
an article on fish culture, taken from the 
National Intelligencer, by their Paris corres- 
pondent. The article is prefaced by a lengthy 
editorial, setting forth the importance of the 
discovery, etc. The article is simply the 
report of M. Milne Edwards, giving in detail 
the discoveries and experiments of the two 
Vosgien fishermen, Gehen and Remy, and no 
further allusion is made to that subject, by 
any one, in that paper. The reader will 
please notice right here that Dr. Bachman 
was writing original articles at that time 
(1853) for that paper on Roses, and other 
subjects. 

Is it not remarkable that not a word or 
sentence is said or written by Dr. Bachman 
on this subject, either in that or any other 
paper at that time? 

Two years afterwards he read a paper 
before the State Agricultural Society of South 
Carolina, at Columbia, stating that he had 
made the same experiments in 1804, differing 
only in this. He took ova from fishes which 
had been dead for several hours, and fertil- 
ized them, and hatched fishes from them. 
The fish was known as the Corporal. He 
also said that he took ova from dead trout in 
the month of August, which was before they 
were mature, and fertilized them, and hatched 
young fishes from these ova, and oh the fol- 
lowing spring he ate a fine trout breakfast 
from these young trout ; and wound up his 
experiments by fertilizing the ova of the 
perch, and after drying them for ten days 
hatched perch from these dried ova. 

Is it not astonishing that he did not remem- 
ber these miraculous experiments when he 
saw the article on fish culture in the Agricul- 
turist, for he must have seen it, as he was 
writing for that paper at that time ? 
Two years afterwards his memory seems to 
have become remarkably refreshed, and he 
remembered very minutely all his experi- 
ments, in 1804, made in his boyhood, and 
made the subject of his paper read at Co- 
lumbia in the fall of 1855, and published in 



PAPERS ON THE PRIORITY OP FISH BREEDING. 



the Southern Cultivator, of the city of 
Charleston. 

Early in 1853 I saw the same article on 
fish culture that was published in the Na- 
tional Intelligencer and copied by the Agri- 
culturist, and it struck my fancy exactly, and 
I went to work at once, and worked hard — 
spent much valuable time, and some thous- 
ands of dollars in money, and demonstrated 
the practicability of artificial fish culture, 
without a hope, or wish, for any pecuniary 
reward, and exhibited at two of our State 
Fairs, (at Cleveland and Cincinnati,) old and 
young brook trout, alive in glass tanks, and I 
confess that I do not relish the idea of being 
defrauded out of what little credit there may 
be in being the first person in America to 
breed fish by artificial fecundation. More- 
over the Chief of the United States Fish 
Commissioners ought to know better than to 
endorse such monstrous absurdities as Dr. 
Bachman states in his paper, read at Colum- 
bia, as it is calculated, as it has, to lead new 
beginners astray— no matter if Prof. Band 
says that "Dr. Slack has well said, that Dr. 
Bachman's character is too well established 
as a Christian, and as a naturalist, to doubt 
his word," as it does not prove Dr. Bach- 
man's priority. 

I ask no man to take my word on the 
question of priority. If Dr. Bachman states 
the truth in his paper above alluded to, he 
anticipated the two Vosgien fishermen by 
fifty years, but never made known his ex- 
periments for fifty-one years. I made my 
first experiments in the fall of 1853. On the 
26th of November of that year, I artificially 
spawned and fecundated the ova taken from 
living brook trout, and on the 22d of Jan- 
uary, 1854, I found my first young trout, and 
described these experiences in a paper read 
before the Cleveland Academy of Natural 
Science, February JJth, 1854, and tbat paper 
was immediately published in the Annals of 
Science, and other papers. 

In 1854 I commenced a series of articles 
on artificial fish culture, which were pub- 
lished in the Ohio Farmer, illustrated with 
wood-cuts— these articles extended into 1855. 
The Ohio Farmer exchanged with the South- 
ern Cultivator, of Charleston, where Dr. 
Bachman saw and read them, and I may add, 
plagiarized from my articles, as I will show. 
In the fall of 1855 Dr. Bachman read his 
paper, alluded to above, on fertilizing ova 
from dead fishes, and dried ova ; which paper 
was published in the Southern Cultivator, 
published at Charleston, South Carolina, 
which Prof. S. F. Baircl accepts as authority, 
for, according to Dr. Bachman, the priority 
of artificial fish culture in this country. If 
Bachman fertilized the ova, taken from fish 
that had been dead for several hours, beyond 
all doubt he fertilized dead ova, and it is to 



be inferred, too, that the male fishes were 
also dead, from which the spermatic fluid 
was obtained to fertilize the dead ova, or ova 
taken from dead fishes. Dare Prof. Baird 
announce over his name, that he believes 
these statements of Dr. Bachman's are true ? 
I have charged Dr. Bachman with plagiar- 
izing from my articles in the Ohio Farmer, 
and I here place side by side extracts from 
Dr. Bachman's paper, alluded to above, and 
one from one of my articles in the Ohio 
Farmer: 



From the Ohio Farmer. 
" The distance the 
water has to pass, is 
greatly increased, by 
putting in a flume zig- 
zaged as shown in the 
cut.'" 



From Dr. Bachman's 

Paper. 

" This (the spring) we 
conducted to the pond 
in zigzag lines,by which 
the distance was in- 
creased. 



What a remarkable coincidence and for a 
boy of fourteen ; and he did all this just one 
year before I was born. 

I most cheerfully accord to Dr. Bachman 
originality, in fertilizing ova from dead fishes 
and ova that have been dried for ten days, 
and to Prof. Baird, immense credulity for 
believing such stuff. 

Theodatus Gaeliok. 



PAPER BY DR. GARLICK, 

Head before the National Convention for the 
preservation of Game and Fish, June 
8th, 1875, at Cleveland, Ohio. 

The following paper on "Hybridization of 
Fish," prepared by Dr. Garlick, was read by 
Mr. Brinsmade, in the absence of its author, 
who was detained by reason of illness: 

Me. Pbesident and Membees of this 
Association : I have been requested to 
read a paper on the subject of fish culture 
at this meeting. It is scarcely necessary for 
me to say that the subject has been written 
upon extensively, and is very well under- 
stood by a majority of the people throughout 
oiu* country, therefore you will not expect 
anything new on this subject. 

In the year 1857 I wrote and published a 
work on artificial fish breeding, based mainly 
on my own experiments. Being quite an 
enthusiast on anything that strikes my fancy, 
I expected to see in a very short time every 
man who had a suitable place for such a 
purpose raising his own fish. I need not 
tell you that I was very much disappointed, 
for the subject lay "flat as a flounder" for 
many years. 

It is quite different now, for not only sev- 
eral States but the general government have 
taken hold of it extensively, and made liberal 
appropriations of money to restock our im- 
poverished streams and lakelets, establishing 
breeding houses and other suitable improve- 
ments for facilitating the objects of the 
enserprise, and employing eminent men — 
men of science and practical fish culturists — 



PAPERS ON THE PRIORITY OF PISH BREEDING. 



to do this work. If you will read Prof. Baird's 
reports, you will see that a vast amount of 
work has been done, and no doubt will be 
done, and a very few years will prove the 
great importance of this branch of human 
industry, in fact it is already proven. 

I propose to offer for your consideration 
the hybridization of certain kinds of fish, and, 
although not entirely new, I am able to pre- 
sent some facts not generally known. 

They are contained in a paper that I read,.. 
or rather caused to be read, for I was sick at 
the time, before the Kirtland Academy of 
Natural Science at Cleveland, February 3d, 
1873. It will be seen that this paper which 
I offer for your consideration is over two 
years old, and has been used; but the " aut- 
ocrat of the breakfast table " remarked at his 
fifth breakfast, that " certain things are good 
for nothing until they have been long kept, 
and other things are good for nothing until 
long kept and used ; of the first is wine, and 
among the latter are poems, violins, and 
meerschaum pipes." As this paper has not 
been long kept, nor much used, it should not 
be expected to have improved much by age 
or use. 

The hybridizing of both plants and ani- 
mals has been long practiced by naturalists, 
and one eminent statesman of our country 
suggested the idea of extinguishing an entire 
race of men in our own country by cross- 
breeding, or, as he termed it, "the bleaching 
process." In proof of his sincerity it is said 
that he practiced what he preached. I do 
not, however, propose to carry hybridizing 
to that extent — only applying the principle 
to fishes. 

In the pages referred to I have only men- 
tioned fishes of the Salmon family for hybrid- 
izing, and I have not a doubt but what this 
has been accomplished in several species of 
the Salmon family, both by the aid and with- 
out the aid of man. That it has been 
achieved by the aid of man, there can be no 
doubt whatever, and I am equally certain 
that it has occurred spontaneously, as detail- 
ed in the following paper 

If it can be accomplished with different 
species of Salmon, there can exist no reason- 
able doubt it can be done with other families 
of fishes of the same genus, such as Perch, 
Pike, Bass,' and other kinds of fishes. 

It should not be expected that all attempts 
at hybridization shall prove to be successf ul, 
nor that in every instance the hybrids would 
be an improvement in size or quality, of the 
parent fishes ; though in Mr. Hanson's 
hybrids the quality was greatly improved ; 
ancfso are the hybrids of Lake Superior, as 
I can bear testimony, having eaten frequently 
of the hybrids, and of tbe parent fishes, In 
case the parent fishes from which you wish 
to breed hybrids, do not spawn precisely at 



the same time. Mr. Hanson's method may be 
adopted, but such persons as believe Dr. 
Bachman's statements should try his methods 
of ' ' drying the eggs for ten days " or even for 
a hundred days, for I apprehend that ten or 
a hundred days of drying them will rua£e no 
difference in the result. 

I will only add a little scrap of history 
furnished me recently by Prof. J. P. Kirt- 
land, which I think will interest all fish cul- 
turists. It is an extract from Peter Kalm's 
travels in North America, November, 1748, 
vol. 1, p. 289, London edition, Fleet street, 
1772. Translated by John Reinholdt Fostor. 

"Mr. Franklin (Dr. B. Franklin) told me, 
that in that part of New England where his 
father lived, two rivers fell into the sea, in 
one of which they caught great numbers of 
herrings, and in the other, not one. Yet the 
places where these rivers discharge them- 
selves into the sea were not far asunder. 
They had observed that when the herrings 
come in the spring to deposit their spawn, 
they always swam up the river where they 
used to catch them, but never came into the 
other. This circumstance led Mr. Franklin's 
father, who was settled between the two 
rivers, to try whether it was not possible to 
make the herrings likewise live in the other 
river. For that purpose he put out his nets 
as they were coming up for spawning, and 
he caught some. He took the spawn out of 
them, and carefully carried it across the land 
into tht other river. It was hatched and the 
consequence was, that every year afterwards 
they caught more herrings in that river ; and 
this is still the case. This leads one to 
believe that the fish always like to spawn in 
the same place where they were hatched, 
and from whence they first put out to the sea, 
being, as it were, accustomed to it." 

Very correct Mr. Kalm, all observations 
since that time shows that you were a close 
observer. Peter Kalm was a Swede, an 
eminent botanist, and the favorite student of 
Charles Linneaus, the great botanist. Our 
beautiful Kalmias (the Laurel) was named 
after Peter Kalm. 

It appears by this little bit of history that 
Doctor Benjamin Franklin's father was the 
original artificial fish breeder in this country, 
and Doctor Bachman and myself must go 
down to the foot. He was not only the first 
man that made the attempt of artificial 
fecundation of the ova of fishes, but the idea 
was original with him, and this more than a 
century and a quarter ago. I am glad to 
know that an American citizen can claim this 
honor, and he the father of our own Doctor 
Franklin. 

At a meeting of Cleveland Academy of 
Natural Science, held February 17th, 1854, I 
read a paper on the artificial propagation of 
fish. In that paper I detailed my experi- 



PAPERS ON THE PRIORITY OF FISH BREEDING. 



ments with the Salmo Fontinalis (brook 
trout). Those experiments were eminently 
successful, and probably the first attempt 
ever made in this country to breed fish by 
artificial impregnation. This has been repeat- 
edly done since that time, on a large scale, in 
different parts of the country, and with 
several different kinds of fish, with entire 
success. Several State governments, and I 
believe the General Government, have made 
considerable appropriations, and appointed 
fish commissioners for the purpose of re-stock- 
ing our impoverished rivers, and of introduc- 
ing fishes of different kinds from other local- 
ities, so that it may be said, at this time, that 
fish raising is a well established branch of 
our industries ; aud yet I feel justified in say- 
ing that it is onlv in its infancy. 

The time is not far distant when every 
available spring and rivulet will be used, to 
some extent at least, for this purpose ; and 
we may look for new discoveries and improve- 
ments., Among these will be hybridizing, 
or cross breeding of the different species of 
the same genus of fishes, to which I wish to 
call your attention at this time. 

In the year 1858, and for some years after, 
I spent a portion of the summer and fall 
seasons at Ontonagon and other ports of 
Lake Superior. At Ontonagon the fishermen 
were taking large quantities of fish, by means 
of gill nets set in deep water (700 to 900 feet 
deep) in Lake Superior. Among the fish so 
captured were the Salmo Amethystus (great 
lake trout), Salmo Siskawit (Siskawit trout), 
and that best of a'l fishes, the White Fish. 
I noticed among these fishes a fish that was 
new to me — a salmon, but differing mater- 
ially from the two salmon mentioned above. 
I also noticed that the purchasers eagerly 
selected this fish in preference to the lake 
trout or the Siskawit trout, the former being 
rather coarse and lean, and the latter too fat. 
I made inquiries about this (to me) new fish, 
and was told by the fishermen that it was a 
cross between the great lake trout and the 
Siskawit trout, and a very much better fish 
than either of the parent fishes. I have 
eaten frequently of all these fishes, and can 
fully bear testimony to the great excellence 
of this hybrid fish; I say hybrid, for I made 
further and particular inquiries and observa- 
tions about this fish, and am entirely satisfied 
that it is a hybrid from the two species above 
named. This hybrid resembles, to some 
extent, both of its parents, as might be 
expected ; some larger than the largest Sisk- 
awit, but not so large as the largest lake 
trout — the markings not like either of their 
parents, but somewhat similar to both. I 
inquired how it was known that this fish was a 
cross between the lake trout and the Siskawit 
trout, and was informed, and I have no doubt 
correctly, that both of the parent fishes spawn 



at the same time or season of the year, and 
were frequently together on the same spawn- 
ing beds, which are generally in the bays 
and near shore where they are taken together 
while engaged in spawning, by means of 
seines, in the fall of the year. 

From repeated inquiries, and personal 
observations, I am entirely satisfied that the 
Salmo Amethystus and the Salmo Siskawit 
do produce a hybrid fish, and no doubt they 
have existed in Lake Superior so long that 
"memory of man runneth not to the con- 
trary." So much for Lake Superior hybrids. 

Some years since my friend professor 
James H. Richardson, of the University of 
Toronto, Canada, wrote me that many years 
ago they had a salmon in Lake Ontario that 
is now extinct, and asked for an explanation. 

My explanation was as follows : Lake 
Ontario has many tributaries that were form- 
erly breeding streams for the Salmo Salar 
(sea salmon). All of these breeding streams, 
except one, a very small stream, a mere 
creek, knowm as Wilmot's creek, have been 
destroyed as breeding streams, by excessive 
and destructive fishing. 

Before these breeding streams of the Salmo 
Salar were destroyed (as breeding streams) 
the Salmo Salar, or sea salmon, used to run 
up the St. Lawrence river in vast numbers 
into Lake Ontario, and seeking then breeding 
grounds, they run along near shore and fre- 
quently eucountered the Salmo Amethystus 
on their spawning beds in the bays, engaged 
in spawning, as both species spawn at the 
same season of the year, and a portion of the 
sea salmon remained on the spawning beds 
of the Salmo Amethystus and spawned with 
them, and a hybrid was the result, which is 
now extinct, for the reason that no sea 
salmon, or none of any account, run into the 
tributaries of Lake Ontario for spawning 
purposes. 

I may remark here that it is a well estab- 
lished fact that all fishes return to where 
they were hatched for spawning purposes. 
Should these breeding streams be restored by 
artificial aid, and I have no doubt they will 
be, we shall again have that extinct fish, 
which is a hybrid from the Salmo-Salar and 
Salmo-Amethystus. 

The above are two instances where hybrids 
are produced without the aid of man. It 
may be proper for me to say that Professor 
Richardson does not accept my theory. In a 
letter received from him recently he says that 
he believes the extinct fish to be the Salmo 
Salar, but one which never leaves fresh 
water, but always remains in the lake or its 
tributaries. I do not accept his theory, for it 
is contrary to the habits of the sea salmon, 
which always lives for a portion of the year 
in the sea, if it can get there, aud certainly 
there is no impediment to then returning to 



8 



PAPERS ON THE PRIORITY OF FISH BREEDING. 



the sea from Lake Ontario ; and, further- 
more, why should the fish spoken of now be 
extinct if Professor Richardson's theory be 
correct ? 

Professor Richardson believes that the sea 
salmon would live and breed in our great 
lakes, provided they could get sufficient food, 
without ever visiting the sea. This may be 
true, and I have been informed that there are 
true sea salmon in one of the small lakes in 
Maine, which never visit the ocean because 
they cannot, being land locked. How they 
came to be there I do not know, but I think 
it very certain that they would visit the ocean 
if they could. 

I will now call your attention to the fact 
that a hybrid salmon has been produced by 
the aid of man. Mr. Hauson, of Stavanger, 
in Norway, has bred a hybrid salmon, by 
crossing the Salmo Alpinus with the Salmo 
Eriox, the former's time for spawning being 
some weeks earlier than the latter. 

Mr. Hanson secured a female Salmo Alpi- 
nus nearly in a condition for spawning, and 
placed her in a perfectly dark tank of water, 
which prevented a further maturing of her 
ova, and as soon as possible afterward, he 
secured a male Salmo Eriox, which was in, 
or near, a mature condition for spawning, 
and placed them together in a favorable place 
for spawning purposes. This pair of fish 
readily mated, the female depositing her ova, 
and they were fecundated by the male Salmo 
Eriox, arid in due time the young fish made 
their appearance in the hatching boxes, with 
a loss of only about one per cent. This 
hybrid attains its growth in four years, the 
fish being remarkable for its vigor and activity 
in the water, and delicacy of flavor when, 
prepared for the table. 

Mr. Hanson entertained strong hopes that 
these hybrids will reproduce, because he 
found ova in the females ;* in this he will 
probably be disappointed, for though he did 
find roes, or ova, in the females they prob- 
ably were not capable of being fecundated. 

I understund that Mr. Hanson has been 
breeding salmon artificially for a number of 
years previous to this attempt at breeding 
hybrids. 

These facts are all interesting to the man 
of science, as well as to the pisciculturist, 
and will no doubt lead to other important 
discoveries and improvements in fish culture. 



Eds. Herald: — Will you oblige me by 
publishing in your paper the foLowine: re- 
ply to Prof. Baird's Fishery Reports "for 
1872 and 1873. In my last review of Prof. 
Baird's reports I said that I intended it 
should be my final reply. Since that time I 
have come into possession of Prof. Baird's 
reports for the years of 1872 and 1873. On 



page 533 he says : "In the United States, 
the first published record of an experiment 
in artificial fecundation was made by the 
late Rev. John Bachman, of Charleston, S. 
O, in 1855." This statement of Prof. 
Baird is untrue. 

The first published statement of the arti- 
ficial fecundation of the ova of fishes in this 
country, was published m the "Annals of 
Science," edited by Prof. H. L. Smith, of 
Cleveland, O., in the month of Eebpaary," 
1854, and soon afterwards copied by all, or 
nearly all, the Cleveland papers, and by 
other papers in this country and in Europe. 
It was a detailed account of my experiments 
m artificial fish culture in 1853, and running 
into 1854. 

Prof. Baird further states, on page 536 
of his reports, ' 'that an account was first 
given by Doctor Garlick n the Ohio Farmer 
of the methods employed by himself, and Dr. 
Ackley, within two or three years after be- 
ginning their experiments." This is also 
untrue. If Prof. Baird intends to support 
Doctor Bachman's claims to priority in arti- 
ficial fish culture in this country by mis 
representations, I shall continue to expose 
him. 

I again call Prof. Baird's attention to the 
fact mentioned in my last communication, 
to- wit: the publication in the Southern Agri- 
£ulturalist, in 1853, of a detailed account of 
the discoveries of Messrs. Ghehen and Remy 
in artificial fecundation of the ova of fishes. 
Doctor Bachman was then writing articles 
for that paper; and the number that con- 
tained the account of the discovery of arti- 
ficial fecundation contained an article from 
Dr. Bachman's pen on the cultivation of 
roses, but no word on artificial fecunda- 
tion of the ova of fishes from Dr. Bach- 
man's pen in that or any other paper 
until the fall of 1855, two years after my 
paper had been written and published. 
Does it not appear singular that Dr. Bachman 
should not have remembered that he had 
made these same experiments fifty years be- 
fore, when he read the article on artificial fish 
culture in the Southern Agriculturist? How 
does Prof. Baird account for this? 

About two years after this article, and my 
published article on this subject, he all at 
once remembers that fifty years before he 
made these same experiments, differing on y 
in this — he used the ova and milt taken from 
brook trout that had been dead for several 
hours — and wound up his experiments by 
drying the eggs taken from the perch for 
ten days, and hatching them. Dare Prof. 
Baird endorse such statements? 

I do not hesitate to say that no man, liv- 
ing or dead, ever accomplished such impos- 
sibilities. T. Garlick. 

Bedford, O., July 12, 1875. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 874 991 



